header-logo header-logo

04 October 2007 / Charmaine Murray , Lee Parkhill
Issue: 7291 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

A difference of opinion

Functions of a public nature should be defined on a case by case basis. Lee Parkhill and Charmaine Murray explain

In YL v Birmingham City Council and others [2007] UKHL 27, [2007] 3 All ER 957 their lordships considered the scope of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), s 6(3)(b), which allows for bodies other than core public authorities to be subject to the obligation, contained in s 6(1), which requires them to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).

An otherwise private body may be regarded as a public authority for the purposes of HRA 1998 if, per s 6(3)(b), it performs “functions of a public nature”. Such a body is commonly referred to as a hybrid public authority. The obligation on such hybrid bodies to observe Convention rights attaches only to functions which are of a public nature. Therefore, determining the scope of s 6(3)(b) is necessary not only to identify which bodies are subject to the obligation in s 6(1), but also to determine

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll